Carlos Nicolau1,2, Evis Sala1, Anita Kumar3, Debra A Goldman4, Heiko Schoder1, Hedvig Hricak1, Hebert Alberto Vargas1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, Hospital Clinic, Villarroel 170, 08036 Barcelona, Spain. 3. 3 Lymphoma Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 4. 4 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to analyze the 18F-FDG PET/CT features of solid renal masses detected in patients with lymphoma and to evaluate the ability of PET/CT to differentiate renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from renal lymphomatous involvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients with solid renal masses on PET/CT performed for staging or follow-up of lymphoma were evaluated retrospectively. The features recorded for each renal mass included the following standardized uptake values (SUVs) on PET/CT: the maximum SUV (SUVmax), the mean SUV (SUVmean), the ratio of the SUVmax of the tumor to that of the normal kidney cortex, the ratio of the SUVmean of the tumor to that of the normal kidney cortex, the ratio of the SUVmax of the tumor to that of the normal liver, and the ratio of the SUVmean of the tumor to that of the normal liver. Renal mass size and margins (well defined vs infiltrative) and the presence of calcifications were evaluated on CT. Renal biopsy results were used as the reference standard. Relationships between imaging parameters and histopathologic findings were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 36 renal masses evaluated, 22 (61.1%) were RCCs and 14 (38.9%) were renal lymphomas. All SUV metrics were higher for renal lymphomas than for RCCs (p < 0.0001, for all). All renal lymphomas had an SUVmax higher than 5.98 g/mL (median, 10.99 g/mL), whereas all RCCs had an SUVmax lower than 5.26 g/mL (median, 2.91 g/mL). No statistically significant differences in mass size or margins were found between RCCs and renal lymphoma. CONCLUSION: PET/CT features may be useful for differentiating RCCs from renal involvement in patients with lymphoma with solid renal masses.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to analyze the 18F-FDG PET/CT features of solid renal masses detected in patients with lymphoma and to evaluate the ability of PET/CT to differentiate renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from renal lymphomatous involvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients with solid renal masses on PET/CT performed for staging or follow-up of lymphoma were evaluated retrospectively. The features recorded for each renal mass included the following standardized uptake values (SUVs) on PET/CT: the maximum SUV (SUVmax), the mean SUV (SUVmean), the ratio of the SUVmax of the tumor to that of the normal kidney cortex, the ratio of the SUVmean of the tumor to that of the normal kidney cortex, the ratio of the SUVmax of the tumor to that of the normal liver, and the ratio of the SUVmean of the tumor to that of the normal liver. Renal mass size and margins (well defined vs infiltrative) and the presence of calcifications were evaluated on CT. Renal biopsy results were used as the reference standard. Relationships between imaging parameters and histopathologic findings were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 36 renal masses evaluated, 22 (61.1%) were RCCs and 14 (38.9%) were renal lymphomas. All SUV metrics were higher for renal lymphomas than for RCCs (p < 0.0001, for all). All renal lymphomas had an SUVmax higher than 5.98 g/mL (median, 10.99 g/mL), whereas all RCCs had an SUVmax lower than 5.26 g/mL (median, 2.91 g/mL). No statistically significant differences in mass size or margins were found between RCCs and renal lymphoma. CONCLUSION: PET/CT features may be useful for differentiating RCCs from renal involvement in patients with lymphoma with solid renal masses.
Authors: Katherine Zukotynski; Aaron Lewis; Kevin O'Regan; Heather Jacene; Christopher Sakellis; Samuel Almodovar; David Israel Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.959